(Original post by Bagration)
Frankly I think that sort of thing is best left to the common law to figure out for itself.

That's a joke, right?

I understand if you personally don't wanna legislate on it, because many people don't understand the psychological aspects under banning hitting children, but surely any MP should listen to pressure groups full of psychologists if they don't understand they key arguments behind it?

It's like me talking about history, if adorno corrected me, then i'd be silly to ignore him.

(Original post by Don_Scott)
Yes, you should. But that has nothing to do with the issue that we are debating.

No, it's the same. By beating your child you're setting them up for a life of poor attachments, cognitive disability and increased chance of mental disorders. If i can't do the same via an injection, why can i do it via beating my child?

No, I never said that. But as a conservative, I belief that there are areas where the government does not belong. Limited government is what is best.

So you did say that. The government doesn't belong in the family so people can do whatever they want to their kids, even if it effectively involves giving them mental disorders.

I understand if you personally don't wanna legislate on it, because many people don't understand the psychological aspects under banning hitting children, but surely any MP should listen to pressure groups full of psychologists if they don't understand they key arguments behind it?

It's like me talking about history, if adorno corrected me, then i'd be silly to ignore him.

Read my edited post.

There's a reason that law is made by lawyers. Pyschologists may advise, definetly. They may say that a law is a good idea or a bad idea based on how it will effect people's pyschiatric health and I don't want it to look like I don't think the information will be valuable. But that is not the only thing that is being legislated on, is it?

You have got me wrong if you think I believe that parents should be able to smack their children and get away with it. We only disagree on how the problem ought to be solved.

(Original post by paperclip)
No, it's the same. By beating your child you're setting them up for a life of poor attachments, cognitive disability and increased chance of mental disorders. If i can't do the same via an injection, why can i do it via beating my child?

Because a smack on the bum causes all that?

(Original post by paperclip)
So you did say that. The government doesn't belong in the family so people can do whatever they want to their kids, even if it effectively involves giving them mental disorders.

No, I never said that. Yes, abuse is not acceptable but we have to be careful and put adequate limits on the government's power.

(Original post by paperclip)
I don't. And at least i don't run away from tough questions

(Original post by Bagration)
Frankly I think that sort of thing is best left to the common law to figure out for itself. People should be able to bring an action against their parents if they have smacked them and the courts can find that this resulted in pyschiatric harm.

But that deals with it after the problem has occurred. Why not get rid of the problem all together? It'll also have positive externalities ie. decreased pressure on NHS, smarter, better functioning workforce, etc.

Statute law makes it a criminal offence to smack your children, no? I do not think this is an effective remedy for two reasons:
1. It grants the state the ability to snoop around people's homes to see if they aren't parenting to proper satisfaction of the state.

Unless you have it how it currently is, ie, noone will be investigated unless there is proper reason (teacher has reason to believe a child is being abused (eg comes in with a black eye reguarly) or the child reports ot)

2. I don't think it acts as an effective deterrent to the people it is supposed to protect.

You may say civil action is not a deterrent either. That is quite true! But it provides some degree of restitution. Locking people up or fining them does not make up for someone having pyschiatric harm. Awarding damages is not the purpose of the criminal justice system. That is civil law. If someone is negligent and does something that involves pyschiatric harm, I expect compensation for their actions. Them being put in jail does not make a difference to my pyschiatric harm.

The money doesn't matter either! People with disorders such as schizophrenia wouldn't care that they're poor, they hate the effects of the disorder. Would you rather have schizophrenia and £1,000, or not have schizophrenia at all?

(Original post by paperclip)
But that deals with it after the problem has occurred. Why not get rid of the problem all together? It'll also have positive externalities ie. decreased pressure on NHS, smarter, better functioning workforce, etc.

That's very nice. I can make a bill banning AIDS and it will ban AIDS? Come on now. Just look at drugs prohibition. Banning people from doing something they want to do rarely works. Also, what do you make of these complaints by Families First?
"In a briefing sent to MPs in preparation for a House of Commons debate due to be held on Tuesday 2 November, Families First warns that a legal ban on smacking would place children at increased risk of harm in at least three ways:

It would give rise to an unprecedented level of unnecessary and potentially damaging state intrusion in families where children are looked after well and are at no risk of abuse;

It would result in a serious misappropriation of already overstretched child protection resources, which would place genuinely abused children at risk of greater harm; and

It would lead to a more widespread use of psychologically damaging responses to children's misbehaviour with a greater likelihood of parents lashing out when they have lost control."

(Original post by paperclip)
Unless you have it how it currently is, ie, noone will be investigated unless there is proper reason (teacher has reason to believe a child is being abused (eg comes in with a black eye reguarly) or the child reports ot)

I see alot of room for abuse here. Children get hurt all the time. Children who are actually being hrut may be scared to tell an authority. The authority will know this. So they go ahead and report a child who has alot of bruises just because they think he's being beaten at home? I think this is largely unenforcable.

(Original post by paperclip)
The money doesn't matter either! People with disorders such as schizophrenia wouldn't care that they're poor, they hate the effects of the disorder. Would you rather have schizophrenia and £1,000, or not have schizophrenia at all?

Erm, that's not the point though. It still has to be proven (by you) that statutory bans on smacking children actually stops children being smacked to the extent they receive pyschiatric harm. If I get schizophrenia it's no use to me that the people who gave it to me are thrown in jail or fined. That doesn't help my situation at all. On the other hand, a court can award damages equal to the sum required of people to receive proper and thorough medical/pyschiatric treatment for their illnesses. I think that would be a great help to many people.

(Original post by Bagration)
That's very nice. I can make a bill banning AIDS and it will ban AIDS? Come on now. Just look at drugs prohibition. Banning people from doing something they want to do rarely works. Also, what do you make of these complaints by Families First?
"In a briefing sent to MPs in preparation for a House of Commons debate due to be held on Tuesday 2 November, Families First warns that a legal ban on smacking would place children at increased risk of harm in at least three ways:

It would give rise to an unprecedented level of unnecessary and potentially damaging state intrusion in families where children are looked after well and are at no risk of abuse;

It would result in a serious misappropriation of already overstretched child protection resources, which would place genuinely abused children at risk of greater harm; and

It would lead to a more widespread use of psychologically damaging responses to children's misbehaviour with a greater likelihood of parents lashing out when they have lost control."

According to a report written by Professor Christina Lyon, the government should rethink its policy on smacking children and invoke a full ban.

A new report from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), Britain's leading centre-left think tank, 'Loving Smack or Lawful Assault', finds that many parents resort to smacking only because they have little idea how else to discipline their children. A national ban should be complemented by educational campaigns and guidance, teaching parents how to deal with children in times of stress. Similar campaigns have turned around public opinion in other European countries.

Professor Lyon argues that physical punishment is not only ineffective, but helps develop violent attitudes and behaviour in childhood and in adult life. Adults slip only too easily from lesser forms of physical into more violent behaviour. The report uses the government's own statistics to argues that there is an overwhelming public support for law reform to ban hitting with implements, hitting on the head, and smacking children under two.

Commenting on the report, Sarah Spencer, Director of the Citizenship and Government programme at the IPPR said: 'There are times when government follows public opinion and there are times when it must take the lead. When child protection is the issue, public opinion cannot be the determining factor. If parental education and support reinforce law reform, public endorsement will follow. The primary intention is not to criminalise, but to bring about a total change in attitudes.'

'Loving Smack - or Lawful Assault' by Professor Christina M Lyon is published by the IPPR.

I see alot of room for abuse here. Children get hurt all the time. Children who are actually being hrut may be scared to tell an authority. The authority will know this. So they go ahead and report a child who has alot of bruises just because they think he's being beaten at home? I think this is largely unenforcable.

It's not hard for social services to have a word with a child, and ensure they're not too scared. It's not intrusive as it wouldn't be like setting up cameras in the homes, etc

Erm, that's not the point though. It still has to be proven (by you) that statutory bans on smacking children actually stops children being smacked to the extent they receive pyschiatric harm. If I get schizophrenia it's no use to me that the people who gave it to me are thrown in jail or fined. That doesn't help my situation at all. On the other hand, a court can award damages equal to the sum required of people to receive proper and thorough medical/pyschiatric treatment for their illnesses. I think that would be a great help to many people.

What costs? We've got free healthcare - physical and mental. What we need is a smacking ban, with education as well - often parents see no other way to discipline their kids and it is certainly the easiest way.

(Original post by Seven_Three)
You expect to have a serious debate on a propaganda piece written by a single person from a left wing think tank? LOL. There is on debate to have, there is no argument on your side.

I will respond to your points later on, but the thing is, I don't want to have a debate about pyschological facts. I largely concede this area to you and your fellow pyschologists. I don't expect to be able to debate you on how children can suffer pyschiatric harm from being beaten as a child. What I am interested in is how we interpret this into policy. You are making reasoned and well-evidenced arguments but it is not enough to persude me from my wariness of statutes. I like you would like smacking children to end in Britain and everywhere else across the world. It is definetly not the way forward and not my idea of loving parenthood. Yet demanding this to be the case by statute law, I think, is a route we shouldn't be going down.

Unless if I am much mistaken in the Bobo doll experiment didn't they have the adult beat to Bobo doll with a mallet? Therefore isn't it a better study of the how the affects of seeing a husband beating a wife up will effect a child in later life, rather than physical chastisation?

(Original post by paperclip)
It's like me talking about history, if adorno corrected me, then i'd be silly to ignore him.

I don't think you have quite fathomed how much adamrules274 has read about the subjects he is voicing opinions on in this thread. I mean it's clear that adam has read more than Adorno on Britain in the first half of the 20th Century and read more than you on psychology. I have no time for your fancy BAs and PhDs.

If I were you, I'd swallow your pride and listen to his informed opinions.

(Original post by adamrules247)
Unless if I am much mistaken in the Bobo doll experiment didn't they have the adult beat to Bobo doll with a mallet? Therefore isn't it a better study of the how the affects of seeing a husband beating a wife up will effect a child in later life, rather than physical chastisation?

The bobo doll studies had an adult beating a toy (a bobo doll), they don't show the effect of a person beating a specific person, they support the social learning theory which shows that if a role model (aka a parent) uses violence then a child is likely to imitate such behaviour. This is known as vicarious learning.

(Original post by Jay Riall)
I don't think you have quite fathomed how much adamrules274 has read about the subjects he is voicing opinions on in this thread. I mean it's clear that adam has read more than Adorno on Britain in the first half of the 20th Century and read more than you on psychology. I have no time for your fancy BAs and PhDs.

If I were you, I'd swallow your pride and listen to his informed opinions.

(Original post by Jay Riall)
I don't think you have quite fathomed how much adamrules274 has read about the subjects he is voicing opinions on in this thread. I mean it's clear that adam has read more than Adorno on Britain in the first half of the 20th Century and read more than you on psychology. I have no time for your fancy BAs and PhDs.

If I were you, I'd swallow your pride and listen to his informed opinions.